The only thing that comes to mind is to have some sort of companion "OSHW Inside" labelling & documentation guide-lines, kind of like Intel's "intel inside (™)" requirements.
This could/would allow for the broader "uses OSHW parts" proliferation without diluting the community value placed on "this is OSHW".
For example, the DeltaMaker (see http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/deltamaker/deltamaker-an-elegant-3d-printer-0) which uses MakerSlide (is OSHW) and possibly some OSHW electronics would be permitted to claim "OSHW Inside" without having to *be* OSHW (yet), regardless of what their eventual plans may be.
Similarly, while the MakerBot Replicator (v1) is/was a fully OSHW Definition compliant product/project, the Replicator 2(X) could at least claim to be "OSHW Inside" by virtue of the parts that remain OSHW.
Something trademark-license-like for use of the "OSHW Inside (™)" could stipulate a minimal set of requirements for attribution back to the "OSHW Definition Compliant Parts and Projects" used. Something inspired by CC-By, allowing for the NC/ND use of the OSHW logo in promotional and documentation material.
Thoughts?
Andrew.
On 2013-03-07, at 11:26 AM, Catarina Mota wrote:
> Well put David. It was precisely this issue that started this whole conversation in the first place. The OSHW logo and label ("open source hardware") are, as many have stated, a brand which is only valuable and useable as long as it means something and points to a well defined set of standards and rights - in this case, the OSHW Definition.
>> So how can we address products that have both open and proprietary components? When I say proprietary I'm referring to designs the creator controls, not something they purchased from another producer and that everyone else can also acquire. Placing the logo on each part of a product presents serious difficulties in terms of manufacturing. And I'm not sure where a textual description would go - is it okay to bury it at the bottom of a minor page on a website while calling the product "open source" on the home page? I'd say no.
>> This is why I was so attracted to Tom's idea of a label that, no matter where it's placed on the product, tells you right away what parts are open.
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, David A. Mellis <dam at mellis.org> wrote:
> These are interesting examples, Tom, but again I think they mostly point out the need to be specific about what part of a product you're calling open-source. For example, here I think it's clear that the PCBs for the SparkFun and Arduino products (I couldn't find files for the Adafruit one) are themselves open-source even if the components they use are not. I think we're much better off being specific about what's open and what's not rather than trying to set standards for, say, the relative complexity of the board vs. the components required for the overall product to be considered open-source -- especially given that basically every product uses proprietary components (whether ICs or radio modules or just screws). The latter approach seems like a potentially endless conversation. Again, look at Linux distributions, where people are still arguing about what level of proprietary software and binary blobs are appropriate to include.
>> Also, my point about using the logo on an enclosure vs. on the PCB inside it wasn't meant as a comment on the relative importance of those two parts but of the semantic interpretation of placing the logo in those places. If I opened up a product and saw the OSHW logo on some part inside it, I wouldn't interpret it to apply to things around it. But if I saw the logo on the outside of a product, it's not clear whether or not it's intended to apply to the insides as well, making its use there confusing if the outsides are open-source but the insides aren't.
>> As an example in the other direction (of electrical vs. mechanical) would be someone that uses a standard servo or DC motor and builds a complex mechanical assemblage around it. If they open-sourced, say, the CAD files they used to design the laser-cut parts that make up the assembly, I'd consider it reasonable for them to use the open-source hardware logo on their packaging or website, even if the motor were proprietary (since it would be just one component of the larger, open-source design). But again, these situations can be confusing and its important to be explicit about what's open-source and what's not.
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Michael Shiloh wrote:
>>> 1) The overall guideline might be "can someone reproduce this project to a reasonable degree (e.g. functionally the same, if perhaps the case is not identical) with the information provided?
>>> So, let's pick a few specific examples, all of which think highly of, and use myself (admitted bias on the third). But I struggle with defining them as entirely open:
>>https://www.sparkfun.com/products/11378>> The major piece of hardware on this board is a proprietary module from Roving Networks. Though SparkFun's support schematic is clearly open, the module that makes this functional is not, nor is it reprogrammable. The API for it is open, though. Is this OSHW? What's the replacement part that could drop into this board and make it work, with minor modifications?
>>http://adafruit.com/products/746>> Similarly, the major piece of hardware (the GPS radio) is proprietary, even though Adafruit's support schematic is clearly open. What's the drop in part (note: Adafruit hasn't put the OSHWA logo on here, so it's possible they don't claim this is open)
>>http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoWiFiShield>> The WiFi radio on this board is proprietary, even though the support processor and its firmware and board schematics are open. This is perhaps a more complex board than the other two, but I'm not sure that complexity changes things much. Or does it?
>>> Contrast those three with this:
>>http://logos-electro.com/zigduino/>> This is perhaps closer to the definition than the others, in that the firmware for the radio module *is* open.
>> My question is: do we need to differentiate between these in terms of their openness,or not? There are plenty of other examples I could pull. I know my work would suffer if I decided not to use these parts, they're all staples in my work. And I'm not an open source hardware absolutist, I use plenty of proprietary hardware. But I'm genuinely not sure where the line is with some of the products we make and use every day.
>> t.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
>discuss at lists.oshwa.org>http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>>>> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
>discuss at lists.oshwa.org>http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss>>> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
>discuss at lists.oshwa.org>http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
--
"The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson
Me: http://clothbot.com/wiki/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/7a99def9/attachment.html>